About the only quibble I have with what you're saying is "stop updates". Instead I'd like it to be easier to customize updates. I don't want to miss patches. Once I've got a setup I like, I want it to stay the same except I want security issues patched. I want to be able to segregate security patches from "features". Also, I'm not sure why Windows 8.1 has this whole business of working on the update while it's in the shutdown process. That's really annoying if I'm shutting down to go away for a while, or because of storm activity. I want to shutdown NOW. Not in 10 minutes. Also, don't auto-shutdown or nag me. Just put a RED WARNING security patch update icon on the task bar or something. I know it's there. I'll do it when I'm done with other stuff.
everybody that can have offspring with us so no goats, no horses, no rabits, and also no apes, pretty easy definition of same specie animal
Only creationists cling to that definition. Evolution killed it dead.
The problem is that change occurs gradually. The common ancestors of you and a cat could certainly interbreed. And so could their offspring, for a long while, until at first you had individuals that were different enough that they couldn't, although most could, and then twogroups that were incompatible, although both could interbreed with a third one, and eventually, all individuals that could interbreed had died off. But what's the exact point where there were two species?
To get the pre-evolution "interbreed" criterion to work, you have to define a proto-species. One individual that is who everyone else is measured against. Otherwise, you wlll run into the problem where your Nth cousin on one side can breed with individuals that you cannot. Where does the line go then?
But by defining a proto-species, you also end up with individuals and groups that will belong to multiple species, because they're midway between the two.
Look at lions and tigers. One variety of tiger can interbreed with lions and create viable offspring, while others cannot. Yet the different types of tigers can interbreed. So our division into species for lions and tigers is not based on breeding.
Your biological parents certainly could breed - there's sad evidence for that. So could their parents. And so on, back through time, back to the common ancestor of you and a chimp. It's a gradual change. Making pigeonholes you can place each individual in is pretty much impossible unless you're prepared to say that your parents were a different species.
We are not good at thinking gradually, alas. We want to classify and group things, to make things simpler. But it's as futile as trying to define where one cloud ends and another one begins. It will always be arbitrary, and subject to change over time.
Look, we have one distinct species we consider human.
But the question is how do you define it?
"Species" is a construct to make it easier for us. We like to classify things. We probably have a brain that favors classifying things. We certainly have brains that favor "us" versus "them". But there really is no such thing as "species" - it's just a convenient lie.
The old rule, "can breed with and produce viable offspring" does not work - evolution killed it. Species that cannot interbreed have a common ancestor, That logically kills that definition (and most others, like your attempt to define humans using human as part of the definition - a classic begging the question).
All living things on earth are related. There are no precise boundaries between "species". Our parents differs slightly from us, and our grandparents even more We may classify our great-N-grandparent or Nth cousin a different species, but we have no rules for saying that our great-N-grandparent was a different species while our great-N-1-grandparent wasn't.
There is currently no objective rule that can say whether someone is or was human or not. Any such rule will either include what we consider other species or exclude some who we consider people. And most certainly, it won't stand the test of time, as we evolve into something we of today surely would call a different species.
I think we need to move beyond our propensity for pigeon-holing, and accept a gradient way of thinking, without boundaries, but degrees of similarity.
I'm very similar to my father, but less so to my ancestor 10,000 years ago, and very dissimilar to my ancestor a million years ago. There's no point in saying who was "human" - it was mostly a gradual change, with a little bit of hybridization throw in at times. I can't point to one of my ancestors and declare that he wasn't human, but his son was. But I can say how much they differed from me. That's useful. Making rules we cannot logically defend isn't.
“Theorists of propaganda have identified five basic rules:
1. The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a single confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
2. The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
3. The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
4. The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: drawing the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star performers, by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’.
5. The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.”
In no way have those who have made endless extraordinary claims provided any extraordinary evidence. It's precise (but not accurate), "sophisticated" models and the precautionary principal all the way down, while consuming government grant money at an unprecedented pace.
I counter with another industry: Piracy. Look at the pirate bay. Tracker sites are illegal in almost every country, yet they routinely operate for years on end before the law can finish cutting through the tangle and actually get anything done about them.
You could even combine them - put your porn up on the Pirate Bay for distribution and collect money through included advertising in the videos or bitcoin donations.
As you request.
The survey was conducted by OnePoll. They describe their survey service as "Survey-led storytelling. Our PR surveys generate data driven content for brands & agencies."
There's an easy definition to Homo Sapiens: a child of a Homo Sapiens. This works for all possible people throughout human history.
Except that it doesn't. It's a classic case of begging the question.
How do we know you are human by that definition?
We would have to know that your parents were human.
But how do we know that?
We would have to know that your grandparents were human.
But how do we know that?
Before long, we look at a common ancestor to you and the chimp. Which either makes the chimp human, or you not.
No, you can not get around this by saying in modern recorded history either, because how do you determine that the first person in modern recorded history was human? There must then be another criterion.